Are We There Yet? Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Higher Education—Twenty Years Later celebrates the landmark text Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Higher Education, 1979–1994: A History by Gail E. Hawisher, Cynthia L. Selfe, Paul LeBlanc, and Charles Moran. Are We There Yet? continues this history of computers and writing from 1995 to 2015.

Preview this article: Review: Circulating Ethical Digital Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/83/4/collegeenglish31197-1.gif

This webtext presents excerpts from recorded interviews with seventeen writing studies practitioners that provide examples of the different, considered approaches to intellectual property that they adopt.

Through sharing results of an analysis of design language use in several writing studies journals, this article explores why we invoke design in published scholarship. After defining the approach to composing known as design thinking, it then moves to a comparison of design thinking and the writing process and looks at an example application of design thinking in the field. I argue that design thinking not only offers a useful approach for tackling multimodal/multimedia composing tasks, but also situates the goal of writing studies as textual action and asks us to reconsider writing’s home in the university.

This article argues that prevailing approaches to research instruction in introductory composition courses, as represented in print and digital instructional materials, reflect outdated theoretical views and may damage students’ researcher identity. Teaching research as a closed, linear, universal process prevents students from leaving the liminal space of the composition classroom.

Based on a study of observable changes author-users made to three Wikipedia articles, this article contends that Wikipedia supports notions of revision, collaboration, and authority that writing studies purports to value, while also extending our understanding of the production of knowledge in public spaces. It argues that Wikipedia asks us to reexamine our expectations for the stability of research materials and who should participate in public knowledge making.